How the approach to biodiversity offsetting in Victoria, Australia, is changing and its potential relevance to England

Transcription

1 potential relevance to England How the approach to biodiversity offsetting in Victoria, Australia, is changing and its potential relevance to England Andrew Cross MCIEEM Ecological Planning & Research Ltd Justin Sullivan Brett Lane & Associates Karen Colebourn MCIEEM Ecological Planning & Research Ltd The proposals for biodiversity offsetting in England have drawn upon a now obsolete system used for more than 10 years in Victoria, Australia. Ecologists from the UK and Victoria have reviewed some of the recent changes to the Victorian system, the reasons behind them and whether these issues may be relevant to what is being proposed for England. Background As part of an exchange programme between Ecological Planning & Research Ltd, an ecological consultancy based in the south of England, and Brett Lane & Associates, a similar ecological consultancy based in Melbourne, Victoria, two of the authors of this article spent a month at each other s consultancy in During this time, systems set up to conserve biodiversity in both Victoria and England were compared and contrasted. 42 The State of Victoria has had legislation in place to control broad-scale clearance of native vegetation since From 2002, detailed guidance for controlling what vegetation can be cleared and the methods for mitigation, including providing compensation by way of biodiversity offsets, were set out in the Native Vegetation Management Framework for Action (NVMF) and its supporting documents. Following 10 years of biodiversity offsetting and a consultation process in 2012, Victoria has substantially revised its approach to how it offsets. The approach set out in the NVMF has been withdrawn and replaced by a new system set out in the 2013 Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (see Further Reading). Victoria s Native Vegetation Management Framework for Action (NVMF) The NVMF was in place between 2002 and 2013 and was written in the context of Victoria s State policies addressing, amongst others, sustainable development, economic growth and biodiversity. It was intended to cover all aspects of the Plains grassland with blue devil Eryngium ovinum and kangaroo grass Themeda triandra. An important habitat occurring in areas threatened by expansion of the western suburbs of Melbourne. The way in which this vegetation is protected or cleared is the subject of the revised protocols. Andy Cross management of native vegetation from a whole of catchment perspective, taking into account all relevant land management and land use activities including forestry, agriculture, nature conservation and development. The NVMF established the strategic direction for the protection, enhancement and revegetation of native vegetation across the State. The primary goal for native vegetation management was A reversal, across the entire landscape, of the long-term decline in the extent and quality of native vegetation, leading to a Net Gain. Included in the NVMF were provisions and a methodology for compensating, in the form of offsetting, for the loss of native vegetation should its clearance be necessary, whether it be for forestry,

2 agriculture or development. In considering the balance between the need to conserve native vegetation in situ and taking a decision to permit its clearance, the following three-step process was applied: 1. Avoid adverse impacts, particularly through vegetation clearance; 2. If impacts cannot be avoided, minimise impacts through expert input to project design or management; and 3. Identify appropriate offset options. The NVMF set out criteria for offsetting decisions and established a market-place concept the BushBroker to facilitate the offset system. The unit of trade in the market place was the habitat hectare, which was a site-based measure of quality and quantity of native vegetation that is assessed in the context of the relevant native vegetation type. Reasons for Changing the NVMF In the course of applying and developing the NVMF, it became clear that whilst there were undoubted successes in conserving native vegetation, via both impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting, there were also problems. Policies relating to the NVMF were subjected to a number of reviews that identified these issues. In September 2012, the Government of Victoria issued a consultation paper - Future Directions for Native Vegetation in Victoria Review of Victoria s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations. This document highlighted the following areas of concern: the objective of the permitted clearing regulations was unclear and not well understood; the permitted clearing regulations did not adequately focus on biodiversity outcomes; the permitted clearing regulations had not been designed to adequately address risk and proportionality; the offset market was subject to high transaction costs, volatile prices and an inability to meet demand for some offsets; greater use of strategic planning was needed; and compliance and enforcement processes needed to be improved. There were 202 responses to the Future Directions consultation from both private and public organisations and from individuals, covering a wide range of issues. Whilst some wanted the regulations controlling the clearance of native vegetation maintained or strengthened, others raised concerns with regard to implementing the system, for example: a complex system to apply, leading to time and financial costs; lack of transparency in the system; inconsistent decisions; auditing of the offset system not comprehensive; protected/conserved areas of vegetation occurred as isolated patches with no strategic conservation or restoration aim; disconnection between the location of the development and the location of an offset; and the logistics of overseeing a scattered network of offset sites. Victoria s response: withdrawing the NVMF and replacing it with the Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines New guidelines were published in May 2013 as the Reforms to Victoria s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations. Amendments to the Victoria Planning Provisions and were implemented in December As part of the Reforms, the NVMF was withdrawn and replaced by the Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines. The supporting documents for these Guidelines are in various stages of preparation at this stage of the transition. The following reforms are considered significant: Clarification of the objective of the permitted clearance regulations: the relationship between Net Gain and No Net Loss Temperate grassland on the Victoria Volcanic Plain. Species here include bluebell Wahlenbergia sp., billy buttons Craspedia sp., pink bindweed Convulvulus angustissimus, blue devil Eryngium ovinum, and wallaby grass Austrodanthonia sp. Also present are non-native species such as perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne and brome Bromus sp. This grassland, well-managed though unfortunately somewhat isolated from other areas of native grassland, is on a registered offset site on farmland west of Melbourne. Andy Cross 43

3 potential relevance to England (contd) The new objective underpinning the guidance for clearance of native vegetation is that there should be no net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria s biodiversity. It is explained as follows: This ensures that while individual landholders are required to compensate for their impacts, the community as a whole bears the cost of achieving net gains. Further, This change seeks to address the confusion between net gain and no net loss and confirms the role permitted clearing plays in achieving biodiversity objectives. Cutting the costs of defining and valuing native vegetation The aims here were to: reduce costs (and improve accuracy in measuring the biodiversity value of native vegetation) through improvements in mapping and modelling approaches; make the site assessment method more transparent; and provide greater certainty for landowners by improved information provision upfront. The key outcome of this reform has been an increased reliance on a master map in the identification of potential impacts. This master map the Biodiversity Interactive Map (available at Victoria s Department of Environment and Primary Industries website about-depi/interactive-maps) is based on information largely drawn from remote sensing, interpretation and modelling. One consequence of this particular reform is that the need for site survey and professional assessment has been much reduced (see modelled maps and risk pathways below). Ensuring offsets provide appropriate compensation The aims here were to: provide protection for native vegetation of high biodiversity value by ensuring that offsets are appropriately tailored to mitigate the impacts of removal; create incentives for landowners to offset in areas that are strategically more likely to deliver biodiversity value; and reduce costs to landowners by providing simplified and more flexible offset arrangements for low impact clearance, which makes up the majority of permit applications. Some concerns about the reformed offsetting process in Victoria The reforms present a new direction and one that is only just beginning to be applied. However, some immediate concerns are: No Net Loss as an aspiration; reliance on modelling for decision making; and the consequences of the low-risk pathway for ecological impact assessment. No net loss vs net gain Whilst the reforms have clarified and amended the objectives, the shift in emphasis from net gain to no net loss seems to mark a lowering of aspirations for the future of native vegetation in Victoria. Modelled maps Following four months of implementation of the reforms in Victoria, concern has arisen over the use of modelled data to predict the likely consequences for threatened species habitats. The Biodiversity Interactive Map is at the core of processes related to the conservation of biodiversity in Victoria. There are serious concerns about the accuracy and resolution of the map and the data on which it is based. There have already been several cases where there have been reliable records of a threatened species at a site, but which the modelled map fails to identify as high risk. These instances bring into question the accuracy and reliability of the map as a key tool for assessment. The introduction of risk-pathways as part of the decision-making process A risk-based approach has been introduced to the decision-making process for permitting the clearance of native vegetation. There are three risk-based pathways for assessing an application: low, moderate or high. The pathway is determined by two factors, outlined below and shown in Table 1. Extent the area in hectares proposed to be removed, or the number of scattered trees. Location the modelled likelihood that removing native vegetation in a location will have an impact on a rare or threatened species. The vegetation in Victoria is allocated to risk level A, B or C, with location A considered to present the lowest risk of potential harm to rare or threatened species and C the highest. 90% of Victoria has been modelled as Location A. The risk-based pathway is determined by combining the two factors as set out in the Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (see Further Reading). The Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines set out the type of assessment needed for each risk pathway to support an application to remove native vegetation or scattered trees. The key split occurs between the Low and the Moderate/ High pathways. For a Low-risk pathway, no field verification of the map is needed and compensation may be provided by applying a standard offset process. What this means in practice is that for applications to remove up to 1 ha of native vegetation and/or scattered trees, there is now, in more than 90% of Victoria, no requirement for an appropriately qualified ecologist to visit the site or even take part in the impact assessment process. A serious cause for concern (although it is too early to provide evidence) is that, given the relatively low resolution of the model, Table 1. Matrix showing risk-based pathways for remnant patches of native vegetation and scattered trees in Victoria (see Tables 3 and 4 in the Victoria Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines) Extent (remnant patches) Location A Location B Location C < 0.5 hectare Low Low High 0.5 hectare and < 1 hectare Low Moderate High 1 hectare Moderate High High Extent (scattered trees) < 15 scattered trees Low Moderate High 15 scattered trees Moderate High High 44

4 impact predicted to be of greater than local significance (per CIEEM s Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment) could be considered inappropriate for offsetting unless there were no alternatives and the proposal was desirable for imperative reasons of over-riding public interest. Delay in identification of appropriate offsets In the original market-based system in Victoria, there was no strategy behind the offset system that could deliver appropriate biodiversity objectives. In practice, trying to find and secure offsets in the market place often led to extensive delays to applications as well as added costs. At the settlement s edge. If the town expands into the adjacent farmland, the risk-pathway could determine whether an ecologist need visit the site as part of an ecological impact assessment. Andy Cross Large old river red-gum with active wedge-tailed eagle nest. Large old gum trees (several hundred years old) are irreplaceable in the landscape and provide important habitat for rare and important fauna species. Justin Sullivan and doubts about the data underpinning the model, small (but possibly important) areas of native vegetation with high potential for rare or threatened species could now be missed in the application process. Lessons to be learnt from Victoria s experience and the relevance to Defra s Green Paper on Biodiversity Offsetting An expectation to offset The original NVMF offset system proved difficult to apply in many instances. Whilst there will have been a myriad of reasons for these difficulties, the situation was exacerbated by the applicants expectation that ecological constraints could always be dealt with by offsetting. As with the Green Paper proposal for England, the process in Victoria required applicants to avoid and minimise impacts prior to considering offsetting. Due, however, to the lack of direction about when it was appropriate, offsetting became the default option, even in situations in which an offset was unlikely to be able to provide a suitable alternative habitat, such as the loss of veteran gum trees. An English biodiversity offsetting system could avoid this problem by setting a residual impact level above which offsetting would not normally be appropriate. For example, a post-mitigation 45

5 potential relevance to England (contd) Further Reading There are undoubtedly many other lessons that we can learn from Victoria s experience of offsetting. If you wish to investigate further, a good place to start would be the Department of Environment and Primary Industries Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity assessment guidelines available at: data/assets/pdf_ file/0011/198758/permitted-clearing-of-nativevegation-biodiversity-assessmentguidelines.pdf Spiny rice-flower Pimelea spinescens a threatened grassland species that is endemic to the Plains grasslands of Victoria. It is possible under the current system in Victoria that if removal of a small area of native vegetation (i.e. <1 ha) is proposed, impacts to such threatened species may not be considered. Andy Cross This could be avoided in England by requiring the strategic planning of biodiversity offsets based on Local Nature Maps or similar. Failure of offsets to deliver anticipated biodiversity benefits Due to the difficulty of finding appropriate offset sites in Victoria, those selected are often scattered, with no connection to other similar sites. This limits their biodiversity potential. Again, the utilisation of Local Nature Maps to plan effective offsets in England could overcome this issue. Distance between impact and compensation Under the old offset system in Victoria, offsets to compensate for the removal of Plains Grassland (a native grassland community) on Melbourne s fringe were often only readily achievable in far western Victoria, possibly several hundred kilometres from the clearance site. In such cases, neither the developer who had funded the offset, nor the local community, experienced or recognised any benefit from the offset. Currently, the proposals for England do not require offsets to be located close to the area affected. The difficult logistics of monitoring the effectiveness of a scattered network of offset sites In the absence of a strategic plan for offsets across Victoria under the NVMF, the offsets are often scattered and monitoring them is costly and time-consuming. In some cases, offset sites have been neglected and the biodiversity objectives have been missed. If offsetting is to succeed in delivering biodiversity objectives in England, competent authorities must be clear about those objectives and the system must facilitate adequate monitoring and review. About the Authors Andrew Cross is a senior ecologist and botanist at Ecological Planning & Research (EPR) and has 15 years experience in botanical surveys and impact assessments. Contact Andy at: andycross@epr.uk.com Justin Sullivan is a senior ecologist and project manager at Brett Lane & Associates (BL&A) based in Melbourne, Victoria. Justin has been at BL&A since 2008 and has undertaken numerous impact assessments across Victoria, many of which included biodiversity offsetting, under the NVMF. Since the start of 2014, Justin has been advising on applications to clear native vegetation in accordance with the native vegetation clearing reforms. Contact Justin at: JSullivan@ecologicalresearch.com.au Karen Colebourn is Managing Director at EPR and an Independent Member of CIEEM s Advisory Forum. Contact Karen at: 46